New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Home arrow News arrow UPDATE: Warren's church says violence no excuse for divorce
 
UPDATE: Warren's church says violence no excuse for divorce Print E-mail
By Bob Allen   
Friday, January 09, 2009

(Editor's note: This story updates, replaces and corrects one issued Jan. 8, which incorrectly attributed the domestic-violence comments to Warren rather than Holladay. ABP regrets the error.) 

LAKE FOREST, Calif. (ABP) -- Comments on the Saddleback Church website that the Bible does not permit a woman to divorce a physically abusive spouse have triggered concerns among advocates for victims of domestic violence.

The pastor of the Southern Baptist megachurch is Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life. Warren has been in the news of late as the surprise pick to deliver the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration.

Audio clips on a "Bible Questions & Answers" section of Saddleback's website feature a speaker who says the Bible condones divorce for only two reasons: adultery and abandonment.

The speaker is not identified on the page, but a spokesperson for Warren said it is Tom Holladay, teaching pastor at the church in Lake Forest, Calif.

"I wish there were a third [reason for divorce] in Scripture, having been involved as a pastor with situations of abuse," Holladay said. "There is something in me that wishes there were a Bible verse that says, 'If they abuse you in this-and-such kind of way, then you have a right to leave them.'"

Holladay said Saddleback's counseling ministry advises separation and counseling instead of divorce in abusive marriages, because it's the only path toward healing. "There's an abusive cycle that's been set up," he said. "Separation combined with counseling has been proven to provide healing in people's lives."

Holladay said there's nothing in the Bible that says a spouse must tolerate abuse. "There's nowhere in the Bible that says it's an attitude of submission to let somebody abuse you," he said. "That is not submission. So we recommend very strongly separation."

He defined what he meant by physical abuse.

"When I say physical abuse, I mean literally somebody is beating you regularly," he said. "I don't mean they grab you once. I mean they've made a habit of beating you regularly. You need to separate in that situation, because that's the only thing that's going to solve that."

Obama's invitation to Warren has been criticized from the left because of his opposition to gay marriage and from the right by Warren's fellow religious conservatives, who fear his prayer will convey approval of Obama's left-leaning social policies.

But Saddleback's published views on domestic violence are what recently caught the attention of Because It Matters, a blog by a lifelong Baptist and abuse survivor who uses the pseudonym Danni Moss to give anonymity to her children, family and former in-laws.

The commentary "expresses a distinct lack of understanding about the nature, heart and spiritual roots of abuse," Moss said.

"I think he believes he is doing right and doesn't realize his ignorance or how much he is hurting people, so this is offered without personal judgment," she added. "But I also believe categorically that it is dangerous."

A women's-rights blog called The New Agenda called the views "alarming," especially in light of recent statistics showing a 42 percent rise in reports of domestic violence from 2005 to 2007. 

Attempts to reach Warren for his take on the controversy Jan. 8 were unsuccessful. Kristin Cole, a spokeswoman for Warren who works at A. Larry Ross Communications, confirmed the voice on the website is Holladay's, but said she does not know when it was recorded.

Holladay also fielded a question about whether a Christian spouse should remain in a "miserable" marriage.

"God sees you as one, and the Bible says they become one, and so the answer, the Bible answer, is yes," Holladay said.

"I often say to people when they're facing this decision, really, you're choosing your pain in this moment, because it's going to be painful either way," he said. "If you stay in the marriage there is the opportunity for reconciliation and for the loss of pain, but there is going to be short-term pain on the way there. There's no way to not have pain."

Holladay said there is an "immediate feeling of freedom" after a divorce -- but in the long run "there is lifelong pain in divorce."

"Does God expect me just to live with this pain?" he asked. "No, I think he expects us to ask him for wisdom to do the things that would cause the pain to begin to be solved. He says we're one and as Christians, as believers, the Bible says a husband is to sacrifice for his wife and the wife is to respect her husband."

"So if that's not happening," he said, "I think you have not only the right but also the responsibility to keep pushing for that, to not just settle for the pain."

-30-

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (16)Add Comment
Eagles' Rest
written by mightyfowl, January 09, 2009
I guess my comment yesterday went away, too. So ... I'll say again that I fully support a woman dialing 911 immediately upon the occurrence of physical abuse. Such abuse is against the law, and I believe the law should handle it to its conclusion.

I take very, very seriously the command to love and cherish one's wife, and to grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of God.
response disappears
written by Dr. J, January 09, 2009
I guess editor didn't like our responses.
Divorce for the Abused
written by BRAD7777, January 09, 2009
FIrst before I begin please refer to the following books that support my premise. They are Divorce and Remarriage in the Church by Instone-Brewer and Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible by Instone-Brewer. In addition, To HAve and To Hold by Atkinson, also Marries Another by Craig Keener.

As Mr. Holladay uses the idea that if it is not mentioned in the Bible then it is not legal as a permissable of a Christian, their were other examples that many of the writers of the Bible did not mention. Neither Paul nor Jesus mentioned reasons mentioned in the Old Testament that divorce was permissable; to include, caring for your spouse, protecting your spouse, and not abondoning her. These were not mentioned because many of these items were in such use that they did not need to be mentioned.

Second, in addition, to what Jesus mentioned there were the writings of both the Rabbinical School of Shammai and the Rabbinical School of Hilliel. To properly understanbd what both Jesus and Paul was trying to get across one must refer to these additional documents because they were in such common use in the 1st Cewntury that neither thought it necessary to mention them.

Jesus and Paul never meant to shackle any body into an unhealthy relationship. What both of them were fighting against was the divorce for "Any Cause" proposed by the School of Shammai and the divorce by separation used by the Romans.

If one will review Jeremiah 3-4, Exodus 21, and Deut 24 they will discover that there were four legal reasons for divorce. They were adultery, failure to meet the families' needs, lack of conjugal love, and abuse. Meeting the families needs were defined as food, clothing, housing, and love. Surely an abuser would not a loving partner.

Finally, Moses states that one could divorce if the partner become hardhearted, simply put repeatedly breaks the vows and is unwilling to repent and reconcile. Paul, stated a married couple was not to separate except to return to each other. Therefore a permanent separation as proposed by Holladay and not get divorced is a violation of New Testament methodology as prescribed by Paul.
You Took the Bait!
written by pjerwin, January 10, 2009
Despite the seriousness of the issue of abuse and divorce, and despite having personally survived domestic physical, emotional and sexual abuse, my response to this piece is puzzled amusement. The question I have to ask is, "What was Bob Allen's motivation for writing this 'news' article? Is this newsworthy?" Is "reporting" on what someone else wrote in a blog about what someone else said what passes for journalism these days? This article is not about divorce and domestic violence, it's about Rick Warren. We can't really know Bob Allen's motivation unless he tells us, but as it stands, the article reads more like "gossip" or "tattling" or "malicious talking," a pretext to gin-up reactions against Warren. If Bob Allen wanted to spark discussion on the relationship of domestic violence and divorce, he would have approached it in a much different way.

Scott
Once is enough
written by StopBaptistPredators, January 10, 2009
A woman shouldn't wait until her husband has "a habit of beating" her regularly before she separates and secures the safety of herself and her children. Once is enough. Holladay doesn't seem to have a clue about the dynamics of domestic violence.
Does Bob Allen have an agenda?
written by heidip, January 10, 2009
After reading this article I admit I was pretty upset with Warren's church so I decided to listen to the audio clip. In #54, the teacher answers the question "What should I do when abuse is happening in my marriage?" As a victim of physical abuse from my spouse, I found it to be helpful, caring, and biblical!

Bob, did you listen to the whole thing or are you trying to get on the Rick Warren media bashing bandwagon? I am all for good journalism (reporting what was said and the context it was said in) but this seems like you have an agenda! I've heard a lot about Rick Warren and I thought that ABP would at least do it justice! Now I'm questioning the rest of your reporting!

Heidi P
New York, NY
CORRECTION
written by heidip, January 10, 2009
Look at # 32

http://saddlebackfamily.com/home/bibleqanda/index.html
...
written by Barbara, January 12, 2009
I think this story is newsworthy. Blog-land is definitely part of the mix in what is newsworthy these days. Christian victim/survivors of domestic abuse are using blogs to support each other and to work towards educating the wider church about how better to handle domestic abuse. There is evident disquiet about the way many churches have handled it in the past. Danni's blog is one place this is being discussed. This was not happening two years ago, or even one year ago. There has been an upswelling of discussion on the web about the issue of domestic abuse in Christian circles in the last twelve months or so.
Saddleback is not alone in having this kind of doctrine and pastoral care guideline. So in one sense it is not appropriate to focus on Saddleback. However, Danni just happened to find out about the Saddleback teaching and wrote about it, which started a thread that many have contributed to. As far as I can tell, the story was not written on Danni's blog because of any wish to ride the interest wave created by Obama's appointing Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration. (I have followed Danni's blog.)
There is certainly a variety of interpretations regarding what the Bible says about divorce for domestic abuse. Saddleback and other like them are clearly asking for or wishing for different ways to understand scripture so that they can better handle domestic abuse. My own book (Not Under Bondage) takes a line somewhat similar to Instone-Brewer's, yet is different in certain ways. It finds clear permission for divorce in cases of domestic abuse.
To Barbara
written by pjerwin, January 12, 2009
A thoughtful article on divorce as a response to domestic abuse and how various churches are handling the issue would be welcome, but the headline itself for Bob Allen's article gives away his intent. The blog entry Allen cited appears to be nothing more than a pretext to level more criticism at Warren and "his" church. Riding the bandwagon of tongue-wagging at President-Elect Obama's choice of Bro. Warren for the inagural prayer, Allen seems to be more interested in escalating the rhetoric than dealing with the serious issue of domestic abuse. In fact, I would submit that Danni Moss and Barbara, along with others working to stem the tide of domestic abuse, should be upset with Allen's hijacking the issue for an ulterior motive.
to P Jerwin
written by Barbara, January 14, 2009
You are entitled to your perception that the title on Moss's blog story ("Rick Warren and Saddleback Church on Domestic Violence") suggests, in your own words, "a pretext to level more criticism at Warren and "his" church. Riding the bandwagon of tongue-wagging at President-Elect Obama's choice of Bro. Warren for the inagural prayer."
I suggest you communicate with Danni Moss yourself, whose email is on her blog, to ask her whether she was intending to climb onto any wave of negative attention being directed at Warren.
For myself, my perception, and I have followed Moss's blog for quite a while, is that Moss was not attempting to catch any Warren-focused publicity and divert or escalate it on her blog, but rather, to do what she has been doing for some time: point out concerns about the way various churches, denominations and Christian people have been handling domestic abuse. Within the context of her blog, that story is not special. It is consistent with other concerns and stories she has raised. It is entirely possible that she coincidentally came across the Saddleback audio clip at same the time as Obama's inauguration was coming up, with Warren as a speaker.
I think it is possible that you have jumped to a wrong conclusion about Moss's motives and agenda. I suggest you read more of the entries on her blog, to get a feel of what it is all about.
If Moss used the name "Rick Warren" in the title of her story, that could just as likely be because she knows that most of the people reading her blog are familiar with his name since he has written so many best selling Christian books. If he was a lesser known individual, she might have titled the piece "Saddleback Church's approach to domestic violence". But he is well know, so her title is valid without imputing malicious intent.
As for Bob Allen's choice to run and title this story the way he did, I think you might be wrong about his intent too. I am aware that Bob Allen has written stories (not sure whether they are on this site) about domestic abuse in a Christian context before. He seems to be more alert to the issue than some other journalists. Possibly he follows Danni's blog as a matter of course, having an interest in the general topic of Christianity and domestic abuse. It was perfectly fair for him to run this story. It is more a story about how a particular church is handling domestic abuse, than a story about Rick Warren.
And we all know the difficulty journalist face in trying to get a short headline, paring words away as much as possible. He may have used the name 'Warren' for that reason only: it's familiar to us all.

By the way, I hope you do read more of Moss's blog!

from Barbara Roberts, author of Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion. www.notunderbondage.com


To P Jerwin
written by Barbara, January 14, 2009
And also, Bob Allen's story was not about whether the Bible allows divorce for domestic abuse. Rather, he was drawing the Baptist community's attention to concerns Christian victims of domestic abuse are having about the way churches are sometimes handling domestic abuse. That would he explain why he mentioned Moss's comment that Saddleback's teaching "expresses a distinct lack of understanding about the nature, heart and spiritual roots of abuse."
Unfortunately, this lack of understanding occurs at not just Saddleback, but many churches. It's a valid and serious issue that (I submit) needs more attention. Thanks Bob Allen!

...
written by Danni, January 14, 2009
To clarify my motives in writing the piece regarding Rick Warren and Saddleback and DV -- I couldn't care less whether he is praying at Obama's inauguration. Frankly, I think that whole hullaballoo is silly. Obama is being inaugurated as President. He can ask anyone he wants to pray. It's his inauguration for pity sake. But, then, that's just me.

I write about issues of abuse and the church. That is what I do. I do
...
written by Danni, January 14, 2009
Oops - my message was trunkated. Let me try that again.

-- Danni
...
written by Danni, January 14, 2009
I write about abuse and the church because real people are being hurt in and by the church which is a direct and profound violation of the Word and the heart of God. This is not a small problem; it is affecting thousands of people in God's church. I do not think this is being done deliberately - which is why I am speaking out.

However, one of the challenges I face is that people tend to think this is something that happens in "just a few churches" with strange theology. In fact, it is a systemic issue with widespread consequences. And the only way I can make this clear is to use real example of real people being hurt by real churches, define the theology being used, take apart the logic and church tradition that are keeping us bound in destructive behavior patterns, etc.

I have recently been attempting to address this directly on my blog and in private e-mail with pastors who have been protesting that I am over-reacting and uneducated. The discovery of the audio clip on Saddleback's website was a powerful, direct example of exactly what I have been saying.

Here we have one of the most well-known churches in America, with one of the most well-respected pastors in America, espousing the mis-treatment of abuse in a documented audio clip. It is not me mis-quoting or mis-interpreting something. It is right there, in plain English, on the web for everyone to hear for themselves.

The use of the names of Saddleback and Rick Warren are obviated by the situation and subject matter. The purpose is not to make a target of either one. It is merely to point out that the problem is not something that is happening in dark corners of Christianity to a few people. This is a mainstream issue. This policy, theology and practice at Saddleback are not unique or unusual.

If anyone takes a quick tour around blogland to hit the comment threads of other posts on this same subject, you will see long strings of commentary by pastors supporting Saddleback's position. This mindset is so "normal" people are not even seeing past the familiar to the obvious when I've pointed it out!

I also use names in my headlines as a matter of course on my blog. You will see this across my site. I do this for one very simple reason. People search for names. This makes it very easy for people to find what they are looking for. If someone wants to find the piece I wrote about Rick Warren and DV, all they have to do is type in "Rick Warren" and there it is. This distinguishes it from all the other pieces I've written about DV. They don't have to search through 25 articles about DV to find the one about Rick Warren. There's nothing nefarious or devious there that I can see.

-- Danni

To Barbara and Danni
written by pjerwin, January 16, 2009
You didn't read my response very well, did you? Danni is doing a fine work, straight up. I have no quarrel with her. I did not criticize Moss in any way, but Bob Allen. Moss' motive for her blog entry and her headline for it was not what I wrote about, but Bob Allen's headline for his article, quote: "the headline itself for Bob Allen's article[/u} gives away his intent." And I wrote that Bob Allen's (mis)use of Moss' blog was his pretext for escalating the anti-Warren rhetoric he's been writing about lately.

Bob Allen and the folks at ABP are supposed to be professional writers. And headlines are not that difficult to write. There are any number of ways he could have written the headline if his intent was to "draw the Baptist community's attention to concerns Christian victims of domestic abuse are having about the way churches are sometimes handling domestic abuse." To wit:

Many Churches Lack Understanding about the Roots of Domestic Violence
Churches Need Better Understanding about the Roots of Domestic Violence
Many Churches Unwittingly Put Victims of Domestic Violence at Greater Risk

That's just right off the top of my head. But none of those are are likely to grab people's attention as much as Allen's demagogic headline: "Warren's Church Says Violence No Excuse for Divorce." Why "Warren's Church?" At any other time, people might wonder, "Warren who?" But Warren has been in the "news" for one reason and Allen himself pointed it out: the inaugural controversy; he tipped his hand in the second, tenth and eleventh paragraphs.

And how about this: If you really want to draw people's attention to the issue, how about inviting Danni Moss to write an article on it for ABP rather than writing and article about what someone wrote in a blog about what a church has on its website? That's just lazy journalism and rather convoluted.
Correction
written by pjerwin, January 16, 2009
Sorry for my clumsy use of the underline! Since I can't go back and edit it, I've stripped them all out and reposted the response.

You didn't read my response very well, did you? Danni is doing a fine work, straight up. I have no quarrel with her. I did not criticize Moss in any way, but Bob Allen. Moss' motive for her blog entry and her headline for it was not what I wrote about, but Bob Allen's headline for his article, quote: "the headline itself for Bob Allen's article gives away his intent." And I wrote that Bob Allen's (mis)use of Moss' blog was his pretext for escalating the anti-Warren rhetoric he's been writing about lately.

Bob Allen and the folks at ABP are supposed to be professional writers. And headlines are not that difficult to write. There are any number of ways he could have written the headline if his intent was to "draw the Baptist community's attention to concerns Christian victims of domestic abuse are having about the way churches are sometimes handling domestic abuse." To wit:

Many Churches Lack Understanding about the Roots of Domestic Violence
Churches Need Better Understanding about the Roots of Domestic Violence
Many Churches Unwittingly Put Victims of Domestic Violence at Greater Risk

That's just right off the top of my head. But none of those are are likely to grab people's attention as much as Allen's demagogic headline: "Warren's Church Says Violence No Excuse for Divorce." Why "Warren's Church?" At any other time, people might wonder, "Warren who?" But Warren has been in the "news" for one reason and Allen himself pointed it out: the inaugural controversy; he tipped his hand in the second, tenth and eleventh paragraphs.

And how about this: If you really want to draw people's attention to the issue, how about inviting Danni Moss to write an article on it for ABP rather than writing and article about what someone wrote in a blog about what a church has on its website? That's just lazy journalism and rather convoluted.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.